16 Aug
2006
16 Aug
'06
11:12 a.m.
Barry Watzman wrote:
But, at the same time, there is too much emotion
connected with the fact
that JPEG is "lossy" and TIFF is "lossless". If neither a person nor
an OCR
program can detect a difference, then the "losses" can be concluded to be
both insignificant and irrelevant.
I see where you're coming from - but I also know that writing a TIFF decoder
is pretty straightforward; I wouldn't fancy doing the same for either JPEG or
PDF (not sure about PNG, but I get the impression that it's pretty simple in
nature).
By the way, several people have asked what resolution
I scan at, and the
answer is 300 DPI MINIMUM for everything, but I sometimes scan at 600 dpi if
there is extremely fine detail present.
Agreed on the DPI front. What I tend to find unacceptable though, even on pure
textual material, are bi-level scans - too much information from the original
is lost, resulting in problems for subsequent OCR (unless the bi-level
encoding was hand-tuned to match each scan individually, and even then it's
far from perfect). Plus bi-level data I find is hell on the eyes when it comes
to actually trying to read it!
Personally I'd prefer to scan at maximum resolution and bit depth now, rather
than having to come back and do it all again at a later date (by which time
the source media may even be unobtainable)
--
A. Because it destroys the natural flow of conversation.
Q. What's wrong with top posting ?